JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM  July 2003

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM July 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Galloway etc

From:

Nick Megoran <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Nick Megoran <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:02:51 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (452 lines)

Dear Fisher,Divya, Dave etc...

I agree with most of what you have said about Galloway.  In his defence,
though, he insists his infamous 'we stand by you' was a plural 'you' to the
Iraqi people, not a personal message to Hussein, and he was involved with
protests against British support of his regime before 1991. Nonetheless, he
could certainly have been more vocal in his condemnation of the government
of Iraqi during the 1990s.

However, the question is not simply do we agree entirely with someone's
position, but to what extent we support those in the same broad movement
even when we might disapprove of their tactics or positions. Thus, for
example, four people are up before the magistrates in Cambridge this week
on a charge of obstructing traffic in anti-war sit-downs. Some in the local
anti-war movement here didn't think it was the right tactic done in the
right way at that moment, but are providing moral support in the trial
anyway. Likewsie Galloway and helping fund his court case, reservations
notwithstanding.  But how far does that go? This issue came up in a more
vexed debate on Hizb-ut Tahrir last year, and there is a geography to this:
the same group might be more or less progressive / regressive in a
different place (eg their Wembly stadium anti-homosexual tirades, or as a
grassroots movement opposing human rights abuses in Uzbekistan). I don't
think there are any easy answers. We draw lines in the sand- the closer
they are to us, the purer we may be, but the less inclusive the movement we
will build.

For all the massive susccess in organisation and mobilisation, the anti-war
movment failed to get enough votes in the
commons.  It seems a number of Labour MPs supported Blair because they saw
in the anti-war movement a hidden agenda to challenge Blair's leadership:
in which case,  Dave, the strength of your objection to the central role of
Galloway et al is illustrated.

Where does the anti-war movement go from here? Thanks for the E.P.Thompson
ref and the ENDS comparisom, Dave -as for the February 15th march, who
would you have liked to have seen on the podium speaking?  Divya, I agree
with you  about the SWP and their ability to form the national Stop-he-War
Coalition. However, I have more problems with the way that goals were set
and slogans chosen. A SWC leader spoke at Cambridgelast week, and he did
just that: spoke, not listened to other views on tactics and directions.
why isn't there a word 'listensperson' in our language?

Nick



--On Tuesday, July 01, 2003, 1:11 PM +0100 "Dave Featherstone"
<[log in to unmask]

AC.UK> wrote:

> Divya, Nick etc...
>
> I agree that that the flaws of Galloway and the SWP are minor compared
>
> to the sins of US imperialism.
>
> I would however disagree completely with the analysis that
>
> 'The Stop the War coalition needed Galloway . . . .'
>
> There is always going to be the risk that leaders/ prominent speakers
> etc
> are going to be pilloried/ discredited by media etc which is hostile
> to
> antiwar movements etc. But to my mind this is why it was a gross error
>
> of judgement on the part of the Stop the War coalition to allow
> someone
> to be put up as a key speaker for the movement - who had such a
> discredited record vis a vis the regime in Baghdad...Regardless of
> whether
> or not he took money from the regime he had been filmed praising the
> Iraqi leader in no uncertain terms...
>
> This is why I think the comparison with ENDS is relevant - the
> movement
> for European Nuclear Disarmament bascially formed alliances between
> New Left anti-nuclear campaigners in Western Europe and dissidents
> fighting the regimes in Eastern Europe. Through doing so they
> articulated
> an innovative position which was hostile to both sides in the Cold
> War-
> and neatly circumvented the Communist sympathiser charges that were
> always hurled at CND... ENDS is vulnerable to being depicted as a semi
>
> personalised project of EP Thompson as he took such a lead role in it
> - he
> claimed somewhere that he thought ENDS had been a key actor in the
> end of the cold war- and he writes about it in his collection of peace
>
> essays Zero Option...
>
> It was this innovative set of alliances and the formation of political
>
> identities which refused the binary oppositions of the cold war which
> I
> think are relevant here...  I think the likes of Galloway and Benn
> closed down the possibilities of articulating the opposition in this
> way...I
> don't really care that much about political leadership- but I'm still
> gobsmacked that this was a mass movement - biggest political
> demonstration we may ever see in London and in terms of the speakers/
> leadership there was very little that represented this...
>
>
> Dave
>
>
> ----------------- reply -------------
>> Nick, Dave . .
>>
>> I think that the circumstances of the Galloway saga, mirror
> questions
> that
>> are important in considering tactical alliances in collective
> struggle
>> against something like American Imperialism especially when it is
> supported
>> daily through media propoganda which supports unquestioningly the
> American
>> line on -the existence of WMD in Iraq and now Iran; the exclusive
> right
> of
>> the West to secure WMDs to use against (illegally, and
> indescriminately)
>> against any nation which is usefull to the Imperialist agenda. At
> the
> end
>> of the day to challenge it means to expose the lies and to build a
> coherent
>> - united front to maximise the effect of an Anti-War/ Imperialist
> movement.
>> The problem is that individuals are strengthened by fighting under a
>
> banner
>> - effective organisationally, but divisive in a 'popular front'
> situation.
>> As activists it is important to keep sight of the bigger struggle,
> because
>> a tirade against Galloway in the face of American corruption doesn't
>
> help
>> the fact that an attack on Galloway, is an example of the lengths
> that
> the
>> American state will go to to occlude the truth, and to stamp out any
>
> mass
>> mobilisation. Thier aim is to discredit the individual and to
> tarnish the
>> credibility of organisers/ leaders of opposition movements, this is
> a
>> common tactic on thier part (Anti-Poll Tax/ Anti-Capitalism
> moivements
>> included).
>>
>> In the same way the SWP is an organised group which has been
> consistent in
>> its Anti-Imperialist stance - In this war, the last gulf war and has
>> consistently argued against sanctions placed on the Iraqis in the
>> intervening period. The SWP have also been consistent in organising
>> locally, exposing government cuts in education, and health. As
> activists
> we
>> may not sign up to the banner of the SWP, or the Galloway fan club,
> but
>> both has value as critical neccessities in any organised anti-war/
>> Imperialist movement. The Stop the War coalition needed Galloway . .
> ..
> ..
>> and the left in general needs activists on the ground to build a
> challenge
>> to both domestic and international injustices. There is no effect in
>> exacerbating sectarian differences, only in addressing points at
> which
> we
>> can build alliances and effective political action.
>>
>> With regards this group gaining 'personal capital' I think this is a
> myth -
>> Like any Trotskyist party the SWP sees itself as a vanguard party -
> a
>> source of history, knowledge and experience in building an active
> network
>> of trade unionists. In my view this doesn't build 'personal
> capital', but
>> builds a larger movement . . with a membership that is active daily
> I
> don't
>> feel threatened by thier activism. I am pleased that they exist and
> are
>> active so that we have a basis for building collective action
> against
>> issues like the Galloway injustice, and the current activities of
> the Bush
>> corporation. In short for building an effective movrement on the
> Left
> the
>> faults of Galloway and the SWP are miniscule in the face of the
> power
> of
>> the American state and its anti internationalist agenda, and the
> resources
>> it has at hand to smash any opposition to it.
>>
>> Divya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Dave,
>> >
>> >Thanks for this useful point- it returns to the recurring question
> about
>> >how broad a spectrum of alliances we feel we can engage in. I think
> it
> is
>> >pretty remarkable that a group of SWP folk and the odd CP member,
> with
>> >support of people as 'colourful' (to put it politely) as Galloway,
> and
> the
>> >alliance with the Muslim Association of Britian (which made many
> people
>> >uncomfortable), could form the core of a group like the
>> >Stop-The-War-Coalition that was able to mobilise more than a
> million
> people
>> >onto the streets.  These groups could have tried to make more
> personal
>> >capital out of it than they did (although here Galloway may indeed
> be
> an
>> >exception).
>> >
>> >I don't know much about the END; do tell me more, and what lessons
> you
>> >think can be learnt for the current anti-war movement.
>> >
>> >What do list members think about the SWC, participation in it, and
> its
>> >future role in the broad anti-war / anti-globalization movements?
>> >
>> >Nick
>> >
>> >>
>> >>  i think it was actually damaging to the anti-war movement to
> have
>> >>someone with his record and style, and with such a compromised
>> >>attitude
>> >>to Hussain taking such a strong leadership role...I think it
> closed
>> >>down
>> >>the possibilities of developing a more nuanced opposition which
> was
>> >>against both Hussain and Bush/ Blair- the kind of imaginative
>> >>geography
>> >>of resistance pioneered by groups like the campaign for European
>> >>Nuclear
>> >>Disarmament (END) in the cold war...
>> >>
>> >>  Best wishes,
>> >>
>> >>  Dave
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>----------------- reply -------------
>> >>>I believe that independent auditors cleared Galloway of all
> charges
>> >>in
>> >>>regard to war on want.
>> >>>
>> >>>He met Saddam Hussein twice, the same number of times as Donald
>> >>Rumsfled.
>> >>>The latter met him to sell weapons and back his war on Iran; the
>> >>former to
>> >>>try and mediate the impacts and effects of war.
>> >>>
>> >>>I agree, he is a self-publicist, and his champagne-socialist
>> >>lifestyle does
>> >>>little to endear him to me.  Nonetheless, he has been an
> important
>> >>and
>> >>>persistent voice in the anti-war movement.
>> >>>
>> >>>I guess the hat won't be passed round at the IBG, then :-)
>> >>>
>> >>>Nick
>> >>>
>> >>>--On 26 June 2003 11:32 +0000 Jon Cloke
> <[log in to unmask]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > I agree completely; George Galloway's been a relentless
>> >>self-publicist
>> >>> > for a number of years who apparently believes that the more
> times
>> >>he gets
>> >>> > on TV the better for the Iraqi people, which is a dubious
>> >>proposition
>> >>to
>> >>> > say the least - and his fawning on Saddam Hussein was
> something
>> >>suitable
>> >>> > only for those with a very strong stomach.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > These allegations were to my mind always going to prove false,
>
> as
>> >>the ones
>> >>> > made by the Telegraph will be, but that doesn't alter the fact
>> >>that
>> >>> > Galloway's made a large amount of money over the last few
> years in
>> >>
>> >>his
>> >>> > role as professional dissident, for very little benefit to the
>> >>people he
>> >>> > claims to represent.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Let him fund his defence out of his own deep pockets.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Jon Cloke
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>>
>>>___________________________________________________________
> __
>> >>____
>> >>> > Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
>> >>> > http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess
>>
>> Divya Tolia-Kelly (Dr)
>>
>> Lecturer in Human Geography
>> Department of Geography,
>> University College London,
>> 26 Bedford Way,
>> London WC1H 0AP.
>> United Kingdom.
>>
>> tel: +44 (0)20 7679 7586
>> fax: +44 (0)20 7679 7565
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~dtkelly
>>



--On 01 July 2003 15:33 +0100 FISHER MICHAEL D <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I agree with much of what has been said on Galloway...
>
> It is perhaps an indication of the political-organisational weakness
> of the left/anti-war movement that such a 'maverick figure' (to be
> polite) has come to assume such a pivotal public role in the debate
> on the war and the nature of the Labour Party and Labour
> government.
>
> I, and most of the people I know, opposed the war without seeing fit
> to give any ground whatsoever to the brutal Iraqi regime - a regime
> that Galloway was, at the very least, happy to be wined and dined
> by, while mass graves were being filled with Sadam's opponents.
>
> Galloway is, to say the least, guilty of a knee-jerk petulance
> common among some on the left that sides uncritically with almost
> any force that stands in opposition to imperialism -even when such
> forces often have the blood of thousands of socialists, trade
> unionists and human rights activists on their hands.
>
> While his opposition to the war has taken some guts, as has his
> opposition to some Labour government policies, his credibility is
> undermined by the weaknesses of his alternatives.
>
> I can't quite bring myself to donate to his legal campaign, or
> advocate that others do so.
>
> Michael.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Date sent:              Tue, 1 Jul 2003 15:04:24 +0100
> Send reply to:          Divya Tolia-Kelly <[log in to unmask]>
> From:                   Divya Tolia-Kelly <[log in to unmask]>
> To:                     [log in to unmask]
>
> Thanks Dave . .
>
> It is true that the leadership of E.P. Thomson is lacking here in the
> Galloway case , but he has continued to politically active as a Labour
> M.P. in opposing Blair's illegal agenda, and has shown himself to nbe one
> of few to stand as a representative of his constituency, and really
> represent thier anti-war feeling. He is a thorn in the side of the Labour
> party because he has exposed thier lack of parliamentary / democratic
> consideration of the millions of voices on these anti-war demos. So in
> this instance Galloway may have limited the debate bacuse of the
> limitations of his political vision, but he has been a singular voice, a
> rare example of an MP who has spoken out and mobilised on the ground . .
> he has argued the difficult line of being against the victimisation of
> the Iraqi people for Oil.
>
> The difficulty is that when there is an organised grouping (however much
> we object to the beaureacratisation of collective action) a 'face' or an
> ellected leader emerges . . often most of us fail to stand as one,
> therefore the Galloway's of this world fill the void .. . very much like
> in local trade union activism, the fulkl time official isn't always the
> one that has the political experience or vision but the one that
> volunteered to do the job that the rest of us failed to volunteer for. As
> a revisionist Galloway has been an effective opposing voice from Gulf War
> in 1992, in the Iran-Iraq war . . and taken a politically precarious
> position against the Labour executive . . a rare event. So although it is
> true . . tyhat in an ideal world of democratic organisation we shouldn't
> 'need' Galloway, here without him the supporters he brings with him (some
> of whom are simply jaded Labour party hacks, and others of whom are
> Glasgows radical left) provide the basis of a braoadening the coalition .
> . I agree not always visionary . . and doesn't always go far enough . .
> (will read that article Dave, Thank you)
>
> Anyway . . I think we should send the bucket around to support him at the
> next IBG . . his legal campaign . . as an act of political support to
> someone being picked off by a multimillion dollar action.
>
> Divya
>
> Divya Tolia-Kelly (Dr)
>
> Lecturer in Human Geography
> Department of Geography,
> University College London,
> 26 Bedford Way,
> London WC1H 0AP.
> United Kingdom.
>
> tel: +44 (0)20 7679 7586
> fax: +44 (0)20 7679 7565
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~dtkelly
> Dr Michael Fisher
> Business School
> Greenwich University
> London SE10 9LS
>
> Tel: 0208 331 9740

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager